Spring snowstorm adds to flooding potential for the Midwest

A major spring snowstorm dumped heavy snow in excess of six inches over a wide swath of the Upper Midwest this week, adding to a snowpack that is already near or in excess of record levels over Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This is bad news for residents in flood-prone areas of the Upper Midwest, as the new storm added more than half an inch of melted rainfall equivalent to the record wet snowpack. When all that snow melts in April, we can expect major and possibly record flooding for North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and the Upper Mississippi River north of St. Louis, according to the National Weather Service (NWS). Their March Spring Flood Outlook released last week warned: A large swath of the North Central United States is at risk of moderate to major flooding this spring. Heavy late summer and autumn precipitation have left soils saturated and streams running high before the winter freeze-up. National Weather Service models show this year's snowpack contains a water content ranked among the highest of the last 60 years, which is similar to the past two years. This threat area extends from northeastern Montana through Wisconsin and along the Mississippi River south to St. Louis. For the third consecutive year, forecasters predict major flooding along the Red River of the North, which forms the state line between eastern North Dakota and northwest Minnesota. Other areas of the Midwest primed for major flooding include Devils Lake in North Dakota, the Milk River in Northeastern Montana, the James and Big Sioux Rivers in South Dakota, the Minnesota River, and the Mississippi River from its headwaters near St. Paul, Minnesota, downstream to St. Louis.

Figure 2. NOAA's latest significant river flood outlook shows that spring flooding is already occurring over South Dakota and on the Mississippi River near its junction with the Ohio River, but is not yet widespread across the Upper Midwest.

There is a huge amount of snow on the ground in North Dakota along the tributaries of the Red River, thanks to fall precipitation that was 150% - 300% of normal, and winter snows that have dumped up to 400% more precipitation than usual. If one were to melt this snow, it would amount to 4 - 6 inches of rain. If heavy rains occur at the same time that the snow melts, there is the potential for the greatest flood in history to affect the cities of Fargo and Grand Forks, the largest and third largest cities in North Dakota. NWS is giving a 35% chance that Fargo will see its greatest flood in history this spring, up from the 20% chance they gave in their February spring flood outlook.

The situation is similar in Minnesota, which has received about double its normal precipitation over the past 3 to 4 months, resulting in the 5th snowiest winter on record in Minneapolis. Snow depths are in excess of 20 inches over wide swaths of of the state, and this snow has a very high water content equivalent to 4 - 6 inches of rain. NWS is giving a 95% chance that the Mississippi River at St. Paul will exceed major flood stage this spring.

In South Dakota, heavy snows this winter have also left a snowpack with a high water content over the northeast corner of the state. The NWS is predicting a 25% chance that the the James River at Huron, SD will reach its highest flood height in history, and a 50% chance for the Big Sioux River at Brookings, SD.

Figure 3. The snow water equivalent of the Upper Midwest's snowpack as of March 24, 2011. Large sections of Minnesota and North Dakota have the equivalent of 3.9 - 5.9 inches of rain (purple colors) stored in their snowpack. Image credit: NWS/NOHRSC.

When will all this flooding occur?The latest guidance from the GFS model predicts winter-like conditions will persist over the Upper Midwest for the next week, with no major storms for the region through early next week. Late next week, there is the potential for a snowstorm that could bring an additional 0.5 - 1" of melted equivalent snow, though this is very uncertain at this point. The first chance of a major thaw will not occur until Sunday, April 3. This will give some time for the current pulse of flood waters generated during last week's warm spell over South Dakota and southern Minnesota to move downstream, and makes the peak of this year's spring flood unlikely to occur until at least the second week of April. Looking back at past great floods in the Upper Midwest, the record 2009 Red River flood peaked on March 28 in Fargo. The great 1997 Red River flood that devastated Grand Forks, causing $3.5 billion in damage, crested on April 18. St. Paul's greatest flood in history crested on April 19, 1965. I expect this year's peak flood will most likely arrive during the 3rd week of April.

Mostly offshore winds expected over Japan for the next weekRadioactive plumes emitted from Japan's troubled Fukushima nuclear power plant will mostly head eastwards out to sea over the next week, thanks to high pressure that will dominate Japan's weather. Latest trajectory plots using NOAA's HYSPLIT model do not show air from the Fukushima plant heading towards Tokyo over the next four days.

Workers are attempting to remove the radioactive water from the tsunami-ravaged nuclear compound and restart the regular cooling systems for the dangerously hot fuel.

The day began with company officials reporting that radiation in leaking water in the Unit 2 reactor was 10 million times above normal, a spike that forced employees to flee the unit. The day ended with officials saying the huge figure had been miscalculated and offering apologies.

"The number is not credible," said Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman Takashi Kurita. "We are very sorry."

A few hours later, TEPCO Vice President Sakae Muto said a new test had found radiation levels 100,000 times above normal — far better than the first results, though still very high.

But he ruled out having an independent monitor oversee the various checks despite the errors.

Yeah, you may want to reconsider as the NWS of Melbourne thinks some area tomorrow alone will get 2" to 3". Expect a big explosion of storms later tonight into tomorrow morning over C FL.

Keep in mind though, that's referring to some areas. With PW's getting up around 2.00 inches and steep lapse rates, there's gonna be very intense rainfall as there is always is in Florida. But remember rainfall down here in Florida is not usually uniform or predictable like it is up North. Up north you typically get large swaths of stratiform rain that produce even distribution of rain. Even convection up there takes on a similar form with elevated convection generally producing fairly uniform coverage.

However here in Florida you'll have some areas get 2 or 3, while others get very little. Which averages around 1 inch distributed QPF. Now that's not always the case, that's just a general example, obviously weather is more variable than that, but you get the picture.

Quoting RastaSteve:94 here in Orlando!!! Hell I think we may hit 97 or 98 over the next few hours. Amazing! I have never seen it this hot so early in the year.

Im tellin you! This has been the warmest year down in Texas and Florida in years. Last Wednesday we hit 93 and Thursday and Friday were 90. At this time last year we saw 70's and didnt see 90's til May. So were going to see those Gulf SSt's jump in April-May.

That map from the HPC is good for now, maybe narrowing that region of highest QPF just a bit. Looking at the latest and previous runs of the GFS as well as the GEFS, they have been showing a large region between 3-4 inches around the Gulf Coast region from Louisiana to the Big Bend region of Florida where the dynamics will be the best. The axis of heaviest precip lies around the I-10 corridor of those aforementioned areas.

Yeah, I'm just playing it as a wait and see, there isn't a lot of confidence in this forecast as I'm sure you're aware of. So I wouldn't bet on anything.

That QPF map doesn't really make any sense to me, the reason why is all the models show the heaviest convection over Central Florida as well as the front stalling in Central Florida. I also think a QPF of 3.5 inches widespread my be overdoing it a bit considering this is the driest time of year, but widespread amounts of 1 to 2 inches seems more reasonable. However, because of very high moisture content and intense convection, isolated much heavier amounts could exist.

That map from the HPC is good for now, maybe narrowing that region of highest QPF just a bit. Looking at the latest and previous runs of the GFS as well as the GEFS, they have been showing a large region between 3-4 inches around the Gulf Coast region from Louisiana to the Big Bend region of Florida where the dynamics will be the best. The axis of heaviest precip lies around the I-10 corridor of those aforementioned areas.

in my small country we have only 1 nuclear reactor. Since 1980 there have been 372 incidents, including loss of electricity which caused loss of the systems cooling as well as the emergency-cooling. When both cooling-systems were down the diesel-driven-cooling was overheated and went down also. Only an emergency powerline to an old coal plant saved us then.

"In the US, nuclear power is HEAVILY regulated to the point where hardly anyone is willing to build a nuclear plant (let alone nuclear research) due to the expense. It's a government controlled entity. Same with France and multiple other countries."

I live in the Netherlands, this nuclear facility is not privately owned. But these things happen you know.And saying that more people die of wind power is really BS. You should look up what Chernobyl caused.And then you should realise that WHO (World Health Organisation) can't come up with the numbers they really found because of an agreement with the UN, especially the IAEA.

"No, they are definitely downplaying. And that's not just my opinion, or the opinion of a few rabid anti-nuclear wackos; that's what nuclear physicists are saying. The only people who think things are being "overhyped" are nuclear industry types."

Nea, an opinion poll in my country, held thursday and friday, showed 75% of the people were convinced that they were downplaying.

That QPF map doesn't really make any sense to me, the reason why is all the models show the heaviest convection over Central Florida as well as the front stalling in Central Florida. I also think a QPF of 3.5 inches widespread my be overdoing it a bit considering this is the driest time of year, but widespread amounts of 1 to 2 inches seems more reasonable. However, because of very high moisture content and intense convection, isolated much heavier amounts could exist.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) announced that the data on the high concentration of radioactive iodine 134, which was published this morning, was found to be wrong. They will announce the new data later. The previous data, experts pointed out, suggests that the core is critical.

Quoting Neapolitan:No, they are definitely downplaying. And that's not just my opinion, or the opinion of a few rabid anti-nuclear wackos; that's what nuclear physicists are saying. The only people who think things are being "overhyped" are nuclear industry types.

I would ask this: if there's truly nothing to fear, why the lack of openness by TEPCO and the Japanese government? Why the constant backing and filling? Why the admissions by TEPCO that they have been less than forthcoming? Why the consistent usage of double-speak and vague or obfuscatory language?

I'll go on record again as stating that I'm not worried at all at this point about Fukushima fallout directly affecting the U.S. I'm far more concerned about the lack of foresight shown by the plant's developers. I'm far more concerned about TEPCO's dismissal of warnings about what could happen should a large tsunami wash over the plant. I'm far more concerned with the short-term and long-term affects of all that radiation belching into the Japanese air and sea.

In short, I'm far more concerned about the fact that, as presently instituted, nuclear energy is not clean, it's not safe, and--worst of all--it's far from adequately regulated.

I see. You're specifically referring to the effects on Japan. I thought you were talking about the nonsense here. My bad.

In the US, nuclear power is HEAVILY regulated to the point where hardly anyone is willing to build a nuclear plant (let alone nuclear research) due to the expense. It's a government controlled entity. Same with France and multiple other countries.

Japan is a bit different. TEPCO is a company that has been reprimanded on several occasions for not adhering to standards. Cheaper that way. And since they weren't any real penalties they didn't care much. And why spend millions on safety improvements on plants when Nothing Bad Will Happen(tm). Why upgrade plants to safer designs when it's cheaper to just leave things the way they are?

Nuclear power is safe AND clean. Even wind power causes more deaths per year. But you can't be half-a$$ about it, and you certainly can't leave it in the hands of for-profit corporations willing to cut corners and ignore warnings to keep their bottom line intact.

TEPCO thought they could do that. They were wrong. It's quite likely that after this the Japanese government will step in with a much heavier hand, and TEPCO will take a pretty significant hit. They may even be removed from the chain entirely (they should be).

Prior to 2008, the government had planned to increase nuclear generating capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 (out of a total 1000 GWe planned), with a further 18 GWe nuclear being under construction then. However, government targets for nuclear power have been increasing. As of June 2010, official installed nuclear capacity projections were 70-80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030 and 400-500 GWe by 2050. China Daily in January 2011 quoted a senior official projecting 86 GWe target in 2020.

In September 2010, the China Daily reported that China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) alone plans to invest CNY 800 billion ($120 billion) into nuclear energy projects by 2020. Total investment in nuclear power plants, in which CNNC will hold controlling stakes, will reach CNY 500 billion ($75 billion) by 2015, resulting in 40 GWe on line, according to CNNC. In order to fund the company's expansion target, CNNC plans to list its subsidiary, CNNC Nuclear Power Co Ltd in 2011, to attract strategic investors.

...In January 2011 a report from the State Council Research Office (SCRO), which makes independent policy recommendations to the State Council on strategic matters, was published. While approving the enormous progress made on many fronts, it cautioned concerning provincial and corporate enthusiasm for new nuclear power plants and said that the 2020 target should be restricted to 70 GWe of new plant actually operating so as to avoid placing undue demand on quality control issues in the supply chain.

Another 30 GWe could be under construction....

Anyway, I don't usually read long posts on this site...To find out more just check out this Link

BEIJING: A shortage of experienced technicians is posing a grave challenge to China's nuclear safety as the country is rapidly expanding nuclear power plants, a former nuclear safety administrator has said.

"Experienced senior technicians currently comprise less than one-third of operating staff, while the rest of the positions are filled by new hands," said Wang Yuqing, former director of the National Nuclear Safety Administration.

Stressing that there has been a drop in the proportion of experienced technicians across all operating staff at nuclear plants, he attributed the disparity in the proportion of experienced technicians to operating staff to the rapid growth in the nuclear power industry.

Wang, a member of the CPPCC national committee, said nuclear power is a unique industry, in which specialized skills and experience are required for an aptitude in safety that cannot be acquired from text books alone.

For example, a nuclear power plant used to have 500 to 600 operating staff, with 80 percent of them having four to five years of experience. Now, however, five to six new units are started at one time, which means the 80 percent of experienced staff are spread across the new units, he said.

In order to meet the energy shortage and combat climate change, China has actively expanded its nuclear industry in recent years.

Ye Qizhen, deputy director of the science and technology committee of the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), said China's installed capacity of nuclear power is expected to reach 70 million kW by 2020, 200 million kW by 2030 and 400 million kW by 2050.

"It means nuclear power will account for 7 percent of China's overall power capacity in 2020, 15 percent in 2030 and 22 percent in 2050," Ye added.

China has approved the construction of 28 more units capable of producing nuclear power, of which 24 are under construction, and another 11 units are already in operation.

In addition to the lack of experienced operators, there is also a shortage of supervisors, according to Wang.

There are currently about 300 official supervisors for nuclear power safety in China. In other countries, such as the US, France, and Japan, there are usually 35 to 40 people who supervise a single unit.

"We already have 11 units under operation, which need about 400 people. For those under construction, we need even more," he said.

Along with skilled manpower shortages, Wang highlighted the need for security controls at nuclear plants.

"The general situation for nuclear security is good," he said, adding that the central government has been giving greater attention to the issue.

As the industry continues to expand at a rapid rate, he called for corporate culture and the awareness of nuclear safety issues to remain in tandem with these developments.

Wang also noted that since China is using more equipment designed and produced in China, rather than importing it from abroad, it is "of the utmost importance to guarantee the quality of this equipment to minimize any potential risks".

According to statistics from the National Energy Administration, China's nuclear power plants experienced 13 operating incidents in the first nine months of 2008, but they had no effect on nuclear safety.